This kind of thing could take up your whole day.
December 18, 2014 9:13 AM Subscribe
"From righteous fury to faux indignation, everything we got mad about in 2014—and how outrage has taken over our lives." The Year of Outrage (SLSlate)
I would care more about this point if it didn't come from slate - not the worst offender but certainly a market leader in the faux outrage to sell clicks as our new liberal narrative. A more interesting take comes from also Scott Alexander who breaks down exactly why it is in the best interest of activists and journalists to focus on the most outrageous / controversial stories to drum up support
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 9:21 AM on December 18, 2014 [24 favorites]
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 9:21 AM on December 18, 2014 [24 favorites]
Not to derail, but there was a very humanizing article in the NY Times, about the Pakistani people, in response to the murder of students and teachers. Much less eye for an eye, much more human.
posted by Oyéah at 9:27 AM on December 18, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 9:27 AM on December 18, 2014
Outrage is as outrage does. I second the recommendation for the Slate Star Codex post on the Toxoplasma of Rage.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
Not to derail, but there was a very humanizing article in the NY Times, about the Pakistani people, in response to the murder of students and teachers. Much less eye for an eye, much more human.
I keep thinking about this sort of thing lately.
Last night, I stumbled across a tweeted pic of a corner of Sydney that is apparently carpeted with flowers & such after the hostage situation there. When that unfolded, the "I'llridewithyou" hashtag turned up to show solidarity with Australian Muslims.
When the War Memorial (caps?) shooting happened in Canada, we saw a Canadian media that was calm, cool and professional. They waited for details. They cut away when there was nothing to report (at least, from what I saw of them in the States).
These things are all terrible, and the school massacre in Pakistan is profoundly awful. But as for the other two--bad incidents, and I don't want to minimize them, but still--had either of those things happened in the US, our media would have been in a frenzy of pants-shitting panic and rage for weeks if not months. We would not have seen cooler heads reassure people. We would not have seen the media work to calm anyone. We'd have seen the same stuff as we saw from Ebola: ZOMGPANICHOWCOULDTHEYLETTHISHAPPENHEREWE'REALLGONNADIE (so stay tuned and watch these commercials!)!!!
And yet, we're the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [6 favorites]
I keep thinking about this sort of thing lately.
Last night, I stumbled across a tweeted pic of a corner of Sydney that is apparently carpeted with flowers & such after the hostage situation there. When that unfolded, the "I'llridewithyou" hashtag turned up to show solidarity with Australian Muslims.
When the War Memorial (caps?) shooting happened in Canada, we saw a Canadian media that was calm, cool and professional. They waited for details. They cut away when there was nothing to report (at least, from what I saw of them in the States).
These things are all terrible, and the school massacre in Pakistan is profoundly awful. But as for the other two--bad incidents, and I don't want to minimize them, but still--had either of those things happened in the US, our media would have been in a frenzy of pants-shitting panic and rage for weeks if not months. We would not have seen cooler heads reassure people. We would not have seen the media work to calm anyone. We'd have seen the same stuff as we saw from Ebola: ZOMGPANICHOWCOULDTHEYLETTHISHAPPENHEREWE'REALLGONNADIE (so stay tuned and watch these commercials!)!!!
And yet, we're the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [6 favorites]
This sort of thing is inevitable in the age of the internet. It's like a fire hose that sprays anxiety.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [15 favorites]
Just read the Slate Star Codex post, and wow, it really is as good as advertised.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Okay, from that Slate Star Codex post:
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
I....am not certain that this is actually accurate.
posted by Frowner at 9:45 AM on December 18, 2014 [42 favorites]
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
I....am not certain that this is actually accurate.
posted by Frowner at 9:45 AM on December 18, 2014 [42 favorites]
Race relations are at historic lows
They're using a pretty short definition of "historic" there.
posted by yoink at 9:48 AM on December 18, 2014 [40 favorites]
They're using a pretty short definition of "historic" there.
posted by yoink at 9:48 AM on December 18, 2014 [40 favorites]
However, I would like to ring in 2015 with some way to feel less outrage. One thing I liked in the Slate piece was the little rage/outrage etymology. I think I'm about outraged out, and I need to find ways to interact with the news and online information generally that push me toward rage/action/commitment/ethics rather than toward outrage/sputtering/line-drawing/all-the-feels.
posted by Frowner at 9:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 9:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Historic-the short version, I like that!
posted by Oyéah at 9:51 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 9:51 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
I....am not certain that this is actually accurate.
I am certain that it's actually offensive and trivializes what's been happening. I've heard a similar take on right-leaning talk radio.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [12 favorites]
I am certain that it's actually offensive and trivializes what's been happening. I've heard a similar take on right-leaning talk radio.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [12 favorites]
I'm already tired of the outrage about outrage. Slate and Scott Alexander have beaten this drum over and over.
posted by kmz at 9:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by kmz at 9:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
I have an overwhelming urge to get that Slate Star Codex post tattooed on my lower back. This means something.
posted by echocollate at 9:59 AM on December 18, 2014
posted by echocollate at 9:59 AM on December 18, 2014
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
I....am not certain that this is actually accurate.
Yeah, good eye, Frowner. Another pathetic attempt to suggest that this is all a big misunderstanding egged on by outside agitators, essentially.
posted by clockzero at 10:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [11 favorites]
I....am not certain that this is actually accurate.
Yeah, good eye, Frowner. Another pathetic attempt to suggest that this is all a big misunderstanding egged on by outside agitators, essentially.
posted by clockzero at 10:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm already tired of the outrage about outrage. Slate and Scott Alexander have beaten this drum over and over.
I mean, I am tired of the whole "oh no the feminists are tearing each other apart!!!" and "when you call me a misogynist you are just dividing us and preventing real social change and unity!!!!" and so on.
At the same time, I look back on the stuff I've spent a lot of time arguing over in the past couple of years and I do kind of regret some of the celebrity/TV/gotcha-ism....not so much because all those people are just so wonderful and why can't I make nice about Random Somewhat Famous Person, but because that's intellectual and emotional energy I could have used on going to meetings, reading actual books or at least long-form serious journalism, learning things, participating in actual policy initiatives, etc. There will always be another tumblr-storm, and while I think that if you have real, meaningful reasons to get involved in a particular situation then that is the best course, I think I could have spent at least some of my time better, both for myself and for the actual world. I also have to admit that arguing on the internet over outrage-things is actually easier and more fun than, say, going to a union meeting or attending some kind of budget hearing.
posted by Frowner at 10:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [16 favorites]
I am certain that it's actually offensive and trivializes what's been happening. I've heard a similar take on right-leaning talk radio.
Also loved the equivalence drawn between MRAs and feminists.
posted by kmz at 10:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Also loved the equivalence drawn between MRAs and feminists.
posted by kmz at 10:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm already tired of the outrage about outrage.
except the point does need to be made. Outrage is easy. Any anxious, over-stimulated, under-informedasshole genius can do it. The key is to do something positive with it, because as Johnny Rotten put it. "Anger is an energy."
What do we do with all this energy?
posted by philip-random at 10:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
except the point does need to be made. Outrage is easy. Any anxious, over-stimulated, under-informed
What do we do with all this energy?
posted by philip-random at 10:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
WORST POST EVAR!!! AAAUUUUUUGH!!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
I liked it since there were a lot of things to get outraged about and I forgot about most of them.
posted by josher71 at 10:07 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by josher71 at 10:07 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
Darn those cynical news media! Always looking for a wedge to drive us apart! What we should instead be doing is celebrating our differences. For instance, we could hold hands and sing songs about how likely we respectively are to be shot and killed by police officers.
posted by Mayor West at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
Darn those cynical news media! Always looking for a wedge to drive us apart! What we should instead be doing is celebrating our differences. For instance, we could hold hands and sing songs about how likely we respectively are to be shot and killed by police officers.
posted by Mayor West at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
I liked it since there were a lot of things to get outraged about and I forgot about most of them.
Agreed. I'm actually kind of mad at myself for letting my outrage dim about some of this.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Agreed. I'm actually kind of mad at myself for letting my outrage dim about some of this.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Related AskMe I posted a few months ago: Turning off the outrage
posted by naju at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by naju at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: A fire hose that sprays anxiety.
posted by Zedcaster at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Zedcaster at 10:12 AM on December 18, 2014 [9 favorites]
had either of those things happened in the US, our media would have been in a frenzy of pants-shitting panic and rage for weeks if not months.
Oh, the Australian media did plenty of pants-shitting.
posted by retrograde at 10:13 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, the Australian media did plenty of pants-shitting.
posted by retrograde at 10:13 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
That Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex article sure does a good job of carefully articulating what a lot of us white guys would love to believe about racism and sexism.
posted by koeselitz at 10:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [22 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 10:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [22 favorites]
> had either of those things happened in the US, our media would have been in a frenzy of pants-shitting panic and rage for weeks if not months.
A few months ago I was reading Turn The Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco, by Peter Shapiro, a really excellent cultural and musical history that anyone with an interest in disco, hip-hop, music in general and/or New York City should check out.
Anyway, the first chapter is mostly about how messed up New York City was during the 1970s, and one of the things it mentions is the series of bombings carried out by Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, which I'd never even heard of. I'm sure there was plenty of media-fed pants shitting at the time, but if that happened today? Can you fucking imagine?
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:32 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
A few months ago I was reading Turn The Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco, by Peter Shapiro, a really excellent cultural and musical history that anyone with an interest in disco, hip-hop, music in general and/or New York City should check out.
Anyway, the first chapter is mostly about how messed up New York City was during the 1970s, and one of the things it mentions is the series of bombings carried out by Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, which I'd never even heard of. I'm sure there was plenty of media-fed pants shitting at the time, but if that happened today? Can you fucking imagine?
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:32 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Hey, a number of those Slate essays are not bad — at least a bit reflective, possibly worth reading. I know, it surprised me too.
posted by RogerB at 10:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 10:35 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's very hard for me to read anything Slate has to say about outrage and take it seriously, not because Slate is "a market leader in the faux outrage to sell clicks as our new liberal narrative" but because Slate is an establishment rag that works pretty hard to define a very narrow consensus. Maybe it tilts liberal, but it's an establishment rag running a tidy little business mining and then soothing middle class anxiety, always there to look down its nose at anything that steps outside its narrow conception of respectable opinion (which its chief political hack would prefer you frame as "realism.")
If Slate has an institutional voice, it's of a kind with that of people who inject their opinion into conversations with a leading, "listen, people." It's the worst combination of "everything you know is wrong" contrarianism and jaded professional punditry. It's the latter stripped of anything like human warmth, laying bare the eyeball-mongering impulse that drives it; and the former remaining as objectionable as it ever has been. It's Cokie Roberts and Malcolm Gladwell hate-fucking in hell.
posted by mph at 10:42 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
If Slate has an institutional voice, it's of a kind with that of people who inject their opinion into conversations with a leading, "listen, people." It's the worst combination of "everything you know is wrong" contrarianism and jaded professional punditry. It's the latter stripped of anything like human warmth, laying bare the eyeball-mongering impulse that drives it; and the former remaining as objectionable as it ever has been. It's Cokie Roberts and Malcolm Gladwell hate-fucking in hell.
posted by mph at 10:42 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
I really could have gotten through the day without visualizing Malcolm Gladwell having sex.
posted by thelonius at 10:47 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 10:47 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
I could live 10,000 years as an eldritch abomination and not need that image.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also loved the equivalence drawn between MRAs and feminists.
From the article:
Men’s rights activists and feminists hate each other not because there’s a huge divide in how people of different genders think, but because only the most extreme examples of either side will ever gain traction, and those only when they are framed as attacks on the other side.
This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.
That Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex article sure does a good job of carefully articulating what a lot of us white guys would love to believe about racism and sexism.
From my reading the article doesn't say anything about racism or sexism at all. It uses social/media treatments of the Garner/Brown cases and the Rolling Stone article to articulate a point about information selection and media amplification.
If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.
posted by echocollate at 10:51 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
From the article:
Men’s rights activists and feminists hate each other not because there’s a huge divide in how people of different genders think, but because only the most extreme examples of either side will ever gain traction, and those only when they are framed as attacks on the other side.
This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.
That Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex article sure does a good job of carefully articulating what a lot of us white guys would love to believe about racism and sexism.
From my reading the article doesn't say anything about racism or sexism at all. It uses social/media treatments of the Garner/Brown cases and the Rolling Stone article to articulate a point about information selection and media amplification.
If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.
posted by echocollate at 10:51 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
I've felt much better about the world since I've gone back to reading more books and ignoring most of the avalanche of social media and news. Humanity just isn't equipped to deal with that shit on a daily basis.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [15 favorites]
I grew up in an atmosphere of toxic outrage, and I bet you did too. This constant barrage of screaming white men who own their own radio stations and television news channels, these religious fundamentalists who stood and stand outside abortion clinics and screamed and sometimes shot doctors, suburban Neo-Nazi punks who delighted in getting a reaction by picking fights in clubs, and on and on. I never seem to have a moment of quiet in my life, I always seem to have seen the red-face of fury unleashing its endless putrid clouds of rage and hate upon others.
So why is tonight different from all other nights.
Hm. Let me go through the year of outrage list.
January 1: Harry Belafonte calling NYC Dickensian and racist.
January 3: A comedian mocked veterans.
January 4: Comedians cracked jokes about Mitt Romney's black grandson.
January 5: Amy Chua wrote a book about a book about how cultural elements might contribute to the success of some minority groups.
January 7: Katie Couric quizzed trangendered guests about their genitals.
January 9: Armand White heckled Steve McQueen at a film festival.
January 10: An interviewer asked Lena Dunham why she takes her clothes off so much in movies.
So I'm 10 days in, and seven of them have involved people of color, women, the trangendered, and veterans; in other words, people who have a long history of being trivialized and marginalized.
I have a feeling I know why this is the year of outrage. Because social media has given voices we usually don't listen to an outlet for being just as angry as people with privilege.
posted by maxsparber at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [20 favorites]
So why is tonight different from all other nights.
Hm. Let me go through the year of outrage list.
January 1: Harry Belafonte calling NYC Dickensian and racist.
January 3: A comedian mocked veterans.
January 4: Comedians cracked jokes about Mitt Romney's black grandson.
January 5: Amy Chua wrote a book about a book about how cultural elements might contribute to the success of some minority groups.
January 7: Katie Couric quizzed trangendered guests about their genitals.
January 9: Armand White heckled Steve McQueen at a film festival.
January 10: An interviewer asked Lena Dunham why she takes her clothes off so much in movies.
So I'm 10 days in, and seven of them have involved people of color, women, the trangendered, and veterans; in other words, people who have a long history of being trivialized and marginalized.
I have a feeling I know why this is the year of outrage. Because social media has given voices we usually don't listen to an outlet for being just as angry as people with privilege.
posted by maxsparber at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2014 [20 favorites]
Yeah, good eye, Frowner. Another pathetic attempt to suggest that this is all a big misunderstanding egged on by outside agitators, essentially.
Which is sort of his schitck, frankly.
I'm reminded of how the people who say they "hate drama" always tend to cause problems, because they prefer quiet over resolution of underlying issues. So instead of things being dealt with, they simmer until everything just explodes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:55 AM on December 18, 2014
Which is sort of his schitck, frankly.
I'm reminded of how the people who say they "hate drama" always tend to cause problems, because they prefer quiet over resolution of underlying issues. So instead of things being dealt with, they simmer until everything just explodes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:55 AM on December 18, 2014
Its amazing to me that Metafites can attempt to talk about outrage culture and then say that Scott's article is an offensive take on the issues comparable to "a similar take on right-leaning talk radio." or that slate is an "an establishment rag that works pretty hard to define a very narrow consensus." without realising they are embodying the very thing they that sustains that same culture. I'm not outraged about this, but it is interesting how deep the battle lines are cut .
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 10:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 10:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
From my reading the article doesn't say anything about racism or sexism at all. It uses social/media treatments of the Garner/Brown cases and the Rolling Stone article to articulate a point about information selection and media amplification.
If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.
That's exactly the point - he talks about information selection while ignoring his own selectivity. For example, he talks about how highly publicized sexual assault accusations are more often "proven" false, while ignoring how our society focuses on the flaws in such accusations to find any excuse to dismiss them, and the more public the case, the more fervent the search.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.
That's exactly the point - he talks about information selection while ignoring his own selectivity. For example, he talks about how highly publicized sexual assault accusations are more often "proven" false, while ignoring how our society focuses on the flaws in such accusations to find any excuse to dismiss them, and the more public the case, the more fervent the search.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
it's of a kind with that of people who inject their opinion into conversations with a leading, "listen, people." Wait, shit, I'm that kind of person.
posted by josher71 at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by josher71 at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Its amazing to me that Metafites can attempt to talk about outrage culture and then say that Scott's article is an offensive take on the issues comparable to "a similar take on right-leaning talk radio." or that slate is an "an establishment rag that works pretty hard to define a very narrow consensus."
I see what you're saying, but at least for me, 1) I've come to my conclusions about Slate Star Codex after spending time engaging with it in good faith. It's actually a great example of the kind of writing that draws you in with intimations of revealing the underlying structure of things - who doesn't want to dig deeper! - and then when it has you hooked, you don't even notice that it's coming to conclusions which are deeply divorced from your understanding of the world. It's not right-wing talk radio, it's something more sinister. I'm wary of the techniques and tricks pulled there. 2) Slate gets grief for good reason. But I actually posted this feature in spite of, as well as because of that. They understand the machinations of the outrage cycle, and what works to pull people in, better than just about anyone. This is a rare peek behind the curtain. It's also stuff I've pondered increasingly over the years, and it's really coming to a head. Slate discussing this is not the latest nontroversy, nor is it crass hypocrisy; it's them picking up in the wind that it's becoming a big meta-talking point, and they're uniquely primed to discuss it.
posted by naju at 11:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
I see what you're saying, but at least for me, 1) I've come to my conclusions about Slate Star Codex after spending time engaging with it in good faith. It's actually a great example of the kind of writing that draws you in with intimations of revealing the underlying structure of things - who doesn't want to dig deeper! - and then when it has you hooked, you don't even notice that it's coming to conclusions which are deeply divorced from your understanding of the world. It's not right-wing talk radio, it's something more sinister. I'm wary of the techniques and tricks pulled there. 2) Slate gets grief for good reason. But I actually posted this feature in spite of, as well as because of that. They understand the machinations of the outrage cycle, and what works to pull people in, better than just about anyone. This is a rare peek behind the curtain. It's also stuff I've pondered increasingly over the years, and it's really coming to a head. Slate discussing this is not the latest nontroversy, nor is it crass hypocrisy; it's them picking up in the wind that it's becoming a big meta-talking point, and they're uniquely primed to discuss it.
posted by naju at 11:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
The star codex post is Mornic both-sides-do-it-bullshyt:
"On the other hand, the controversy over dubious rape allegations is exactly that – a controversy. People start screaming at each other about how they’re misogynist or misandrist or whatever, and Facebook feeds get filled up with hundreds of comments in all capital letters about how my ingroup is being persecuted by your ingroup. "
Yeah sorry rape victims and victims of false accusations aren't two sides of an argument, and misogyny and misandry aren't two equally bad things. Give me a fucking break.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [12 favorites]
"On the other hand, the controversy over dubious rape allegations is exactly that – a controversy. People start screaming at each other about how they’re misogynist or misandrist or whatever, and Facebook feeds get filled up with hundreds of comments in all capital letters about how my ingroup is being persecuted by your ingroup. "
Yeah sorry rape victims and victims of false accusations aren't two sides of an argument, and misogyny and misandry aren't two equally bad things. Give me a fucking break.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on December 18, 2014 [12 favorites]
For example, he talks about how highly publicized sexual assault accusations are more often "proven" false, while ignoring how our society focuses on the flaws in such accusations to find any excuse to dismiss them, and the more public the case, the more fervent the search.
Did you miss the part where highly publicized cases really are more likely to be really false? It's not just about excuses to dismiss, it's about things that are really and truly not true. That was actually the part that really piqued my interest: Given that rape accusations are so rarely false, why are widely publicized accusations false at such a greater rate?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:15 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Did you miss the part where highly publicized cases really are more likely to be really false? It's not just about excuses to dismiss, it's about things that are really and truly not true. That was actually the part that really piqued my interest: Given that rape accusations are so rarely false, why are widely publicized accusations false at such a greater rate?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:15 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Presuming that the dubious claim that publicized rape accusations are most likely to be false (give me a fucking break) is true, how many people who reflexively call any publicized rape accusation a false one would also do so to a non-publicized one?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:21 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:21 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
ThatFuzzyBastard: “Did you miss the part where highly publicized cases really are more likely to be really false?”
Yes, I missed the part where he demonstrated that highly publicized cases really are more likely to be false.
The whole article seemed pretty long on assertions and short on rational demonstration.
posted by koeselitz at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2014 [13 favorites]
Yes, I missed the part where he demonstrated that highly publicized cases really are more likely to be false.
The whole article seemed pretty long on assertions and short on rational demonstration.
posted by koeselitz at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2014 [13 favorites]
That's exactly the point - he talks about information selection while ignoring his own selectivity.
He states up front and unequivocally that, statistically, only a small fraction of accusations are false as compared to the much higher number of highly publicized cases. He wonders rhetorically why the most dubious cases are the ones that become highly publicized, when the vast majority of incontrovertible cases are ignored. He then posits that the later are singled out precisely because they are contestable, polarizing clickbait seed that will raise the profile of the larger social issue (rape), but actually serve to further polarize people because these individual cases are so contestable.
For example, he talks about how highly publicized sexual assault accusations are more often "proven" false, while ignoring how our society focuses on the flaws in such accusations to find any excuse to dismiss them, and the more public the case, the more fervent the search.
People point out the flaws in those accusations to dismiss them because they're lies and damaging to the public's perception of very serious issues (i.e., rape).
Your reading, and those like it, of what he's written is fucking breathtaking to me.
posted by echocollate at 11:25 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
He states up front and unequivocally that, statistically, only a small fraction of accusations are false as compared to the much higher number of highly publicized cases. He wonders rhetorically why the most dubious cases are the ones that become highly publicized, when the vast majority of incontrovertible cases are ignored. He then posits that the later are singled out precisely because they are contestable, polarizing clickbait seed that will raise the profile of the larger social issue (rape), but actually serve to further polarize people because these individual cases are so contestable.
For example, he talks about how highly publicized sexual assault accusations are more often "proven" false, while ignoring how our society focuses on the flaws in such accusations to find any excuse to dismiss them, and the more public the case, the more fervent the search.
People point out the flaws in those accusations to dismiss them because they're lies and damaging to the public's perception of very serious issues (i.e., rape).
Your reading, and those like it, of what he's written is fucking breathtaking to me.
posted by echocollate at 11:25 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
Seems like if you say both sides do it, the truth is in the middle, and this is the truth, you can make outlandish claims without being constrained by evidence.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:26 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:26 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Did you miss the part where highly publicized cases really are more likely to be really false?
Yeah, I certainly did. Where's the evidence for that?
posted by clockzero at 11:28 AM on December 18, 2014 [8 favorites]
Yeah, I certainly did. Where's the evidence for that?
posted by clockzero at 11:28 AM on December 18, 2014 [8 favorites]
I was going to write another argumentative comment here, but - well It would be fuelling my own outrage filter to do so. Please, have a happy christmas mefites and consider donating to the Against Malaria Foundation, make a big difference against the absolute worst thing in the world.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 11:29 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 11:29 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
So I guess it's kosher here to say that most publicized rape accusations are made by lying women? Gotcha. Bye.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:31 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:31 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Men’s rights activists and feminists hate each other not because there’s a huge divide in how people of different genders think, but because only the most extreme examples of either side will ever gain traction, and those only when they are framed as attacks on the other side.
This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.
It's the classic "difference of opinion" equivocation. Saying that two sides are diametrically opposed allows you to blame one or both sides for the opposition and outrage while avoiding the messy bit of examining what they are actually opposed over, because then you might find out that the side you support has a really odious viewpoint.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:33 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.
It's the classic "difference of opinion" equivocation. Saying that two sides are diametrically opposed allows you to blame one or both sides for the opposition and outrage while avoiding the messy bit of examining what they are actually opposed over, because then you might find out that the side you support has a really odious viewpoint.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:33 AM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
Scott Alexander is such an over-ingenious fool that discussing his writing makes me wish we were discussing an article published in Slate, over ingenious folly dot com, instead. But where could I find such an article?
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Presuming that the dubious claim that publicized rape accusations are most likely to be false (give me a fucking break) is true, how many people who reflexively call any publicized rape accusation a false one would also do so to a non-publicized one?
Very few, since (as the article notes), the vast majority of accusations are inarguably completely true. The question the article is examining is why are the ones that aren't true seemingly more likely to get media traction than the ones that are.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:35 AM on December 18, 2014
Very few, since (as the article notes), the vast majority of accusations are inarguably completely true. The question the article is examining is why are the ones that aren't true seemingly more likely to get media traction than the ones that are.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:35 AM on December 18, 2014
I've grown tired of the word "outrage" itself, because it is almost always used to mean "your anger and pain is unjustified, silly, and/or insincere." It's a charge that almost always comes from people safely encased in the status quo and simply cannot see Giving A Shit about people not in your immediate circle as anything other than contrivance, and will tell you so. They assume that your Share or your hashtag is mutually exclusive with action, every time, and are seemingly incapable of just scrolling past. They are aggressively apathetic, and it is so weird to me to be shouted down to care less or care differently.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:36 AM on December 18, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:36 AM on December 18, 2014 [11 favorites]
kmz: “Also loved the equivalence drawn between MRAs and feminists.”
from article: “Men’s rights activists and feminists hate each other not because there’s a huge divide in how people of different genders think, but because only the most extreme examples of either side will ever gain traction, and those only when they are framed as attacks on the other side.”
echocollate: “This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.”
I'm not sure how you're reading this sentence, but it draws a basic equivalence between feminists and so-called "men's rights activists." It describes them as functioning in the same way – as thriving off of conflict with "the other side." You could argue that it doesn't say explicitly that feminists and MRAs are equivalent in other ways; but since it doesn't talk about other relations between these two groups, it doesn't really matter. Insofar as it talks about them, it talks about a characteristic both purportedly have in common. It is drawing an equivalence.
me: “That Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex article sure does a good job of carefully articulating what a lot of us white guys would love to believe about racism and sexism.”
echocollate: “From my reading the article doesn't say anything about racism or sexism at all. It uses social/media treatments of the Garner/Brown cases and the Rolling Stone article to articulate a point about information selection and media amplification. If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.”
Here's the point that annoyed me most:
from article: “This follows about three months of most of America being at one another’s throats pretty much full-time about Ferguson. We got treated to a daily diet of articles like Ferguson Protester On White People: ‘Y’all The Devil’ or Black People Had The Power To Fix The Problems In Ferguson Before The Brown Shooting – They Failed or Most White People In America Are Completely Oblivious and a whole bunch of people sending angry racist editorials and counter-editorials to each other for months. The damage done to race relations is difficult to overestimate – CBS reports that they dropped ten percentage points to the lowest point in twenty years, with over half of blacks now describing race relations as ‘bad’.”
This is assuming what it intends to prove. Alexander seeks to prove that media reports cause worsening relations between people and cause social dissention as a sort of "toxoplasma of rage;" so he finds a poll that shows dissention in society and assumes that those numbers were caused by media reports. But there are a flotilla of other explanations and possibilities. First is the distinct possibility that the poll results and the articles are completely unrelated. We'd have to determine whether people actually read these articles about Ferguson in any large number – and no, we can't assume that people are actually reading articles just because they're in the Washington Post. Second is the possibility that, even if these articles seem to precipitate racial dissention, the articles themselves might not be to blame. Articles are a way people communicate, and people are going to communicate either way. You could just as easily say that articles about the 9/11 attacks were to blame for a national conversation about terrorism – because if people hadn't read articles about 9/11, they would never have known about those things and wouldn't have talked about it. But that's clearly silly, right? Because those things happened – you can't blame "articles" for actually just saying what people were thinking and talking about, and for informing people of what was going on.
I say this is what us white guys would love to believe because Alexander repeats several times this canard:
“Everybody hates rape just like everybody hates factory farming. ‘Rape culture’ doesn’t mean most people like rape, it means most people ignore it.”
But this isn't true. I understand that this seems to be a nuanced view of rape culture, but it absolutely is not the way rape culture persists. If "most people" participated in rape culture just by "ignoring it," it would just go away. Nobody would buy rape-y video games or go to rape-y movies or read rape-y books. Consent would just be taken for granted as just the baseline of sexual activity. Alexander is trying to paint a picture of a world where people are mostly very nice folks – they just put up with the rape-y folks in their midst.
Yes, that would be an awful culture to have. But it would not be rape culture. Rape culture actively supports rape. Rape culture actively condones the abrogation of consent by portraying it in films, in books, in video games as something that is sometimes desirable. Rape culture, in short, is an active thing.
It's convenient for myself and other white guys to believe that rape culture or white supremacist culture just means ignoring the bad stuff – because then we get to say: well, most people aren't really that bad. We aren't really sexist or racist at all. Everybody's against police brutality against minorities when it comes down to it – they just put up with it too often.
The trouble is that this isn't true. We actively condone sexism and racism by putting them in our media, in our entertainment, by codifying them into law. Justice isn't just common sense that everybody comes around to in the end; it's something difficult that everybody has to work toward.
We can't expect things to get better just because we "fix" the media. The media is a symptom, not the source of the problem.
posted by koeselitz at 11:38 AM on December 18, 2014 [19 favorites]
from article: “Men’s rights activists and feminists hate each other not because there’s a huge divide in how people of different genders think, but because only the most extreme examples of either side will ever gain traction, and those only when they are framed as attacks on the other side.”
echocollate: “This is a description of a dynamic between subsets of two groups. I'm unclear how you suppose the author is drawing an equivalence between the two groups based on what's actually written.”
I'm not sure how you're reading this sentence, but it draws a basic equivalence between feminists and so-called "men's rights activists." It describes them as functioning in the same way – as thriving off of conflict with "the other side." You could argue that it doesn't say explicitly that feminists and MRAs are equivalent in other ways; but since it doesn't talk about other relations between these two groups, it doesn't really matter. Insofar as it talks about them, it talks about a characteristic both purportedly have in common. It is drawing an equivalence.
me: “That Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex article sure does a good job of carefully articulating what a lot of us white guys would love to believe about racism and sexism.”
echocollate: “From my reading the article doesn't say anything about racism or sexism at all. It uses social/media treatments of the Garner/Brown cases and the Rolling Stone article to articulate a point about information selection and media amplification. If he does such a careful and articulate job of talking about about racism and sexism, then I totally missed it and would love to hear your summary.”
Here's the point that annoyed me most:
from article: “This follows about three months of most of America being at one another’s throats pretty much full-time about Ferguson. We got treated to a daily diet of articles like Ferguson Protester On White People: ‘Y’all The Devil’ or Black People Had The Power To Fix The Problems In Ferguson Before The Brown Shooting – They Failed or Most White People In America Are Completely Oblivious and a whole bunch of people sending angry racist editorials and counter-editorials to each other for months. The damage done to race relations is difficult to overestimate – CBS reports that they dropped ten percentage points to the lowest point in twenty years, with over half of blacks now describing race relations as ‘bad’.”
This is assuming what it intends to prove. Alexander seeks to prove that media reports cause worsening relations between people and cause social dissention as a sort of "toxoplasma of rage;" so he finds a poll that shows dissention in society and assumes that those numbers were caused by media reports. But there are a flotilla of other explanations and possibilities. First is the distinct possibility that the poll results and the articles are completely unrelated. We'd have to determine whether people actually read these articles about Ferguson in any large number – and no, we can't assume that people are actually reading articles just because they're in the Washington Post. Second is the possibility that, even if these articles seem to precipitate racial dissention, the articles themselves might not be to blame. Articles are a way people communicate, and people are going to communicate either way. You could just as easily say that articles about the 9/11 attacks were to blame for a national conversation about terrorism – because if people hadn't read articles about 9/11, they would never have known about those things and wouldn't have talked about it. But that's clearly silly, right? Because those things happened – you can't blame "articles" for actually just saying what people were thinking and talking about, and for informing people of what was going on.
I say this is what us white guys would love to believe because Alexander repeats several times this canard:
“Everybody hates rape just like everybody hates factory farming. ‘Rape culture’ doesn’t mean most people like rape, it means most people ignore it.”
But this isn't true. I understand that this seems to be a nuanced view of rape culture, but it absolutely is not the way rape culture persists. If "most people" participated in rape culture just by "ignoring it," it would just go away. Nobody would buy rape-y video games or go to rape-y movies or read rape-y books. Consent would just be taken for granted as just the baseline of sexual activity. Alexander is trying to paint a picture of a world where people are mostly very nice folks – they just put up with the rape-y folks in their midst.
Yes, that would be an awful culture to have. But it would not be rape culture. Rape culture actively supports rape. Rape culture actively condones the abrogation of consent by portraying it in films, in books, in video games as something that is sometimes desirable. Rape culture, in short, is an active thing.
It's convenient for myself and other white guys to believe that rape culture or white supremacist culture just means ignoring the bad stuff – because then we get to say: well, most people aren't really that bad. We aren't really sexist or racist at all. Everybody's against police brutality against minorities when it comes down to it – they just put up with it too often.
The trouble is that this isn't true. We actively condone sexism and racism by putting them in our media, in our entertainment, by codifying them into law. Justice isn't just common sense that everybody comes around to in the end; it's something difficult that everybody has to work toward.
We can't expect things to get better just because we "fix" the media. The media is a symptom, not the source of the problem.
posted by koeselitz at 11:38 AM on December 18, 2014 [19 favorites]
The question the article is examining is why are the ones that aren't true seemingly more likely to get media traction than the ones that are.
And the response he's avoiding is that it's not that they're more likely to be false, but that greater publicity encourages every fault to be magnified, so that it becomes easier to dismiss a claim as false.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:41 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
And the response he's avoiding is that it's not that they're more likely to be false, but that greater publicity encourages every fault to be magnified, so that it becomes easier to dismiss a claim as false.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:41 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
I really could have gotten through the day without visualizing Malcolm Gladwell having sex.
Imagine just his hair, gently rocking back and forth, like labile coral undulating in the ocean's currents.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:42 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Imagine just his hair, gently rocking back and forth, like labile coral undulating in the ocean's currents.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:42 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
I really could have gotten through the day without visualizing Malcolm Gladwell having sex.
I wonder how close he is to having 10,000 hours in the saddle?
I also wonder if he calls his unit his 'little outlier'
posted by ian1977 at 11:47 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
"The Black Swan".
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:48 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:48 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Imagine just his hair, gently rocking back and forth, like labile coral undulating in the ocean's currents.
Now, imagine a Mantis Shrimp shoplifitng that shit. Outrageous!
posted by valkane at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2014
Now, imagine a Mantis Shrimp shoplifitng that shit. Outrageous!
posted by valkane at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2014
I think that's his finishing move Elementary Penguin
posted by ian1977 at 11:50 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 11:50 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Its amazing to me that Metafites can attempt to talk about outrage culture and then say that Scott's article is an offensive take on the issues comparable to "a similar take on right-leaning talk radio." or that slate is an "an establishment rag that works pretty hard to define a very narrow consensus." without realising they are embodying the very thing they that sustains that same culture. I'm not outraged about this, but it is interesting how deep the battle lines are cut .
My comment was specifically and only about this:
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
I was not making an overarching comment about the article, its author, or Slate. I agree that a lot of "outrage" is crap set on fire by the media itself to serve its own interests. I also understand how talk radio works; their bread and butter comes from stirring up shit. For them to complain about other people's outrage is just how the game is played.
However, I do most certainly take offense at the notion that there are certain current racial issues that "some" people are getting overly upset about because the media keeps stirring them up. Those men and boys won't be any less dead if the media stops reporting on it. But the "enough already, can we move on?" is in fact a notion that I have heard on radio stations from hosts who have long-established right-leaning points-of-view and seem to believe that police can do no wrong, ever. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to say that out loud but the emperor really is running around naked.
posted by fuse theorem at 11:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
My comment was specifically and only about this:
Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.
I was not making an overarching comment about the article, its author, or Slate. I agree that a lot of "outrage" is crap set on fire by the media itself to serve its own interests. I also understand how talk radio works; their bread and butter comes from stirring up shit. For them to complain about other people's outrage is just how the game is played.
However, I do most certainly take offense at the notion that there are certain current racial issues that "some" people are getting overly upset about because the media keeps stirring them up. Those men and boys won't be any less dead if the media stops reporting on it. But the "enough already, can we move on?" is in fact a notion that I have heard on radio stations from hosts who have long-established right-leaning points-of-view and seem to believe that police can do no wrong, ever. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to say that out loud but the emperor really is running around naked.
posted by fuse theorem at 11:56 AM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
MetaFilter: Cokie Roberts and Malcolm Gladwell hate-fucking in hell.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
ThatFuzzyBastard: “The question the article is examining is why are the ones that aren't true seemingly more likely to get media traction than the ones that are.”
I want to make it clear that I'm not saying Alexander's hypothesis about the media latching onto more controversial edge cases must be false. The problem in this particular case is that his theory is completely unfounded.
from article: “The University of Virginia rape case profiled in Rolling Stone has fallen apart. In doing so, it joins a long and distinguished line of highly-publicized rape cases that have fallen apart. Studies often show that only 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are false. Yet the rate for allegations that go ultra-viral in the media must be an order of magnitude higher than this. As the old saying goes, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
Why must it? Alexander seems to believe that, by adducing three cases from the past thirty years – roughly one per decade – where the purported victim failed to successfully pursue legal action against the accused, he has demonstrated that publicized rape cases are false at a much higher rate than 2 to 8 percent. For this to be true – for his demonstration to be sound – there would have to be fewer than ten publicized rape cases per decade, fewer than one per year. Surely this isn't the case, is it?
And, again, note that this is assuming that cases where the purported victim fails to successfully prosecute the accused are all "false accusations." Given the difficulty of prosecuting rape, and in particular the complications and strangenesses even in the three cases he cites, this seems like a quite unwarranted assumption. Numerous experts have indicated that something probably happened to Jackie at the University of Virginia, even if she is misremembering certain details in her attempt to tell her story in a convincing way. Dismissing these as simple false accusations is ignoring their nuance – particularly since Jackie didn't actually accuse anybody at all.
There is a way to pursue this topic carefully. One could do even back-of-the-napkin figures, estimating how many publicized rape accusations there are every year and checking over them to see how many apparently turn out to be false. But Alexander didn't do that, and in skipping over that work he missed the substance of what he's talking about.
posted by koeselitz at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
I want to make it clear that I'm not saying Alexander's hypothesis about the media latching onto more controversial edge cases must be false. The problem in this particular case is that his theory is completely unfounded.
from article: “The University of Virginia rape case profiled in Rolling Stone has fallen apart. In doing so, it joins a long and distinguished line of highly-publicized rape cases that have fallen apart. Studies often show that only 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are false. Yet the rate for allegations that go ultra-viral in the media must be an order of magnitude higher than this. As the old saying goes, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
Why must it? Alexander seems to believe that, by adducing three cases from the past thirty years – roughly one per decade – where the purported victim failed to successfully pursue legal action against the accused, he has demonstrated that publicized rape cases are false at a much higher rate than 2 to 8 percent. For this to be true – for his demonstration to be sound – there would have to be fewer than ten publicized rape cases per decade, fewer than one per year. Surely this isn't the case, is it?
And, again, note that this is assuming that cases where the purported victim fails to successfully prosecute the accused are all "false accusations." Given the difficulty of prosecuting rape, and in particular the complications and strangenesses even in the three cases he cites, this seems like a quite unwarranted assumption. Numerous experts have indicated that something probably happened to Jackie at the University of Virginia, even if she is misremembering certain details in her attempt to tell her story in a convincing way. Dismissing these as simple false accusations is ignoring their nuance – particularly since Jackie didn't actually accuse anybody at all.
There is a way to pursue this topic carefully. One could do even back-of-the-napkin figures, estimating how many publicized rape accusations there are every year and checking over them to see how many apparently turn out to be false. But Alexander didn't do that, and in skipping over that work he missed the substance of what he's talking about.
posted by koeselitz at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [10 favorites]
Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory: “Its amazing to me that Metafites can attempt to talk about outrage culture and then say that Scott's article is an offensive take on the issues comparable to ‘a similar take on right-leaning talk radio.’ or that slate is an ‘an establishment rag that works pretty hard to define a very narrow consensus.’ without realising they are embodying the very thing they that sustains that same culture. I'm not outraged about this, but it is interesting how deep the battle lines are cut .”
You and Mr Alexander are the ones insisting that this "culture of toxoplasmic outrage" exists. Of course it seems strange to you that we don't see that we're inside it. But it might be that your idea of how the world works is coloring your perception of our arguments.
As I think I demonstrated above, Mr Alexander's argument is just a very unwarranted, unscientific theory about how he thinks activist media blows things out of proportion. I don't think he's evil. I don't think he's vile. I'm just aware that he isn't providing any useful insights into how activist media works.
In short: you're assuming that "the toxoplasma of rage" is a thing, and so you see it everywhere. I would suggest that you question this assumption a bit since we haven't seen anything that warrants it.
posted by koeselitz at 12:05 PM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
You and Mr Alexander are the ones insisting that this "culture of toxoplasmic outrage" exists. Of course it seems strange to you that we don't see that we're inside it. But it might be that your idea of how the world works is coloring your perception of our arguments.
As I think I demonstrated above, Mr Alexander's argument is just a very unwarranted, unscientific theory about how he thinks activist media blows things out of proportion. I don't think he's evil. I don't think he's vile. I'm just aware that he isn't providing any useful insights into how activist media works.
In short: you're assuming that "the toxoplasma of rage" is a thing, and so you see it everywhere. I would suggest that you question this assumption a bit since we haven't seen anything that warrants it.
posted by koeselitz at 12:05 PM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
This is assuming what it intends to prove. Alexander seeks to prove that media reports cause worsening relations between people and cause social dissention as a sort of "toxoplasma of rage;" so he finds a poll that shows dissention in society and assumes that those numbers were caused by media reports. But there are a flotilla of other explanations and possibilities.
I guess? It seems very cherrypicky to me in the context of the larger article. I don't think the thrust of his thesis is that media is the cause of racial tension, only that it's very efficient and successful at amplifying and exacerbating preexisting tensions, and that in many cases it self selects stories to beat precisely for those qualities. Which I think is fairly intuitive. Does anyone really believe that's not the case?
Rape culture actively supports rape. Rape culture actively condones the abrogation of consent by portraying it in films, in books, in video games as something that is sometimes desirable. Rape culture, in short, is an active thing.
When I see things like this I honestly wonder, where are all of these pro-rape films, games, and books? Because I'm a reasonably popculture savvy dude, and with a few highly publicized exceptions, these things don't cross my radar.
Aside from that though, and this may be a matter of terminology and semantics, but I was under the impression that, as academics/activists conceptualized it, the passive aspects of rape culture were not only the largest but the most difficult to overcome, precisely because most people outside the hallowed halls of 4chan would agree that rape is a pretty shitty thing.
I really appreciate you following up in good faith, though, and articulating an answer to my question. Cheers.
posted by echocollate at 12:07 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
I guess? It seems very cherrypicky to me in the context of the larger article. I don't think the thrust of his thesis is that media is the cause of racial tension, only that it's very efficient and successful at amplifying and exacerbating preexisting tensions, and that in many cases it self selects stories to beat precisely for those qualities. Which I think is fairly intuitive. Does anyone really believe that's not the case?
Rape culture actively supports rape. Rape culture actively condones the abrogation of consent by portraying it in films, in books, in video games as something that is sometimes desirable. Rape culture, in short, is an active thing.
When I see things like this I honestly wonder, where are all of these pro-rape films, games, and books? Because I'm a reasonably popculture savvy dude, and with a few highly publicized exceptions, these things don't cross my radar.
Aside from that though, and this may be a matter of terminology and semantics, but I was under the impression that, as academics/activists conceptualized it, the passive aspects of rape culture were not only the largest but the most difficult to overcome, precisely because most people outside the hallowed halls of 4chan would agree that rape is a pretty shitty thing.
I really appreciate you following up in good faith, though, and articulating an answer to my question. Cheers.
posted by echocollate at 12:07 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
You probably just don't notice them.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:09 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:09 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
When I see things like this I honestly wonder, where are all of these pro-rape films, games, and books?
Sixteen Candles, Revenge of the Nerds, Wedding Crashers, off the top of my head.
posted by kmz at 12:14 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Sixteen Candles, Revenge of the Nerds, Wedding Crashers, off the top of my head.
posted by kmz at 12:14 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Sixteen Candles, Revenge of the Nerds, Wedding Crashers, off the top of my head.
The first two are 30 years old, and yea, they're creepy as fuck. I guess I was looking for examples contemporaneous with the larger public discussion around rape. Maybe the last fifteen years or so, new media being produced, etc.
posted by echocollate at 12:19 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
The first two are 30 years old, and yea, they're creepy as fuck. I guess I was looking for examples contemporaneous with the larger public discussion around rape. Maybe the last fifteen years or so, new media being produced, etc.
posted by echocollate at 12:19 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Isn't it almost tautologically true that "newsworthy" rape cases are also going to more often be false accusations than is typical of "non-newsworthy" cases? Part of what makes a rape story "newsworthy", after all, is if it turns out to be false. The very rarity of false rape reports is part of what makes those cases "news" (the "man bites dog" principle).
But even more than that, for a rape accusation to become a national news obsession it has to be an extraordinary case. The vast majority of "ordinary" cases of rape (and one hates to be able to use that word for anything so inherently ghastly) are pretty clear cut--whether or not one believes the victim, there's not much reporting to do, if any, beyond "Jane Roe says she had some drinks with John Doe and invited him back to her place where he forced himself upon her." It's only going to become a big media story if there's some inherent element of complexity (multiple perpetrators, perpetrators unknown to the victim, famous victim, famous perpetrator etc.) which opens up a higher-than-usual likelihood of either mistake or deliberate false accusation.
posted by yoink at 12:29 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
But even more than that, for a rape accusation to become a national news obsession it has to be an extraordinary case. The vast majority of "ordinary" cases of rape (and one hates to be able to use that word for anything so inherently ghastly) are pretty clear cut--whether or not one believes the victim, there's not much reporting to do, if any, beyond "Jane Roe says she had some drinks with John Doe and invited him back to her place where he forced himself upon her." It's only going to become a big media story if there's some inherent element of complexity (multiple perpetrators, perpetrators unknown to the victim, famous victim, famous perpetrator etc.) which opens up a higher-than-usual likelihood of either mistake or deliberate false accusation.
posted by yoink at 12:29 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
The first two are 30 years old, and yea, they're creepy as fuck. I guess I was looking for examples contemporaneous with the larger public discussion around rape. Maybe the last fifteen years or so, new media being produced, etc.
"Blurred Lines" was controversial on this score and a hit. The premise of Superbad is "A group of lovable losers go out one night explicitly planning to get girls so drunk that they will have sex with them."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:34 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
"Blurred Lines" was controversial on this score and a hit. The premise of Superbad is "A group of lovable losers go out one night explicitly planning to get girls so drunk that they will have sex with them."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:34 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
Maybe the last fifteen years or so, new media being produced, etc.
Observe and Report.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:36 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Observe and Report.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:36 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Race relations are at historic lows
That implies there was a historic high at some point.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:43 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
That implies there was a historic high at some point.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:43 PM on December 18, 2014 [5 favorites]
When I see things like this I honestly wonder, where are all of these pro-rape films, games, and books?
I haven't seen some of the really egregious examples that have been brought up, but I think of rape culture in terms of the dozens of little messages that say things like "It's very important to have a lot of sex; high-status men get to have a lot of sex, it makes you kind of pathetic if you don't have lots of sex" or "Men want sex and women don't, so it's the natural order of the universe that women have to be coaxed or pressured into sex to some degree" or "Okay, it's kind of douchey to lie to women and engineer elaborate schemes to get them to have sex with you, but it's not that bad" (c.f. Barney on How I Met Your Mother) or "It's good to be really, really, really persistent when there's someone you like, and if they don't return your affection they just need more persuasion" or "Women can be divided into innocent victims and evil seductresses who you can treat terribly because they're evil" (Okay, "Supernatural" is low-hanging fruit in terms of its gender roles! To be fair most of the recent TV I watch is pretty decent in terms of rape culture.)
And none of those things, by itself, goes so far as to say "It's okay to rape people." But they are building blocks of a worldview that can be used to justify it.
I've phrased this too much in terms of men and women, perhaps. But "Prison rape is funny" and "Prison rape is something that really awful criminals deserve" are still way more mainstream ideas than they ought to be. That's not the sort of thing that I usually think of as being part of rape culture -- but it is.
posted by Jeanne at 12:44 PM on December 18, 2014 [16 favorites]
I haven't seen some of the really egregious examples that have been brought up, but I think of rape culture in terms of the dozens of little messages that say things like "It's very important to have a lot of sex; high-status men get to have a lot of sex, it makes you kind of pathetic if you don't have lots of sex" or "Men want sex and women don't, so it's the natural order of the universe that women have to be coaxed or pressured into sex to some degree" or "Okay, it's kind of douchey to lie to women and engineer elaborate schemes to get them to have sex with you, but it's not that bad" (c.f. Barney on How I Met Your Mother) or "It's good to be really, really, really persistent when there's someone you like, and if they don't return your affection they just need more persuasion" or "Women can be divided into innocent victims and evil seductresses who you can treat terribly because they're evil" (Okay, "Supernatural" is low-hanging fruit in terms of its gender roles! To be fair most of the recent TV I watch is pretty decent in terms of rape culture.)
And none of those things, by itself, goes so far as to say "It's okay to rape people." But they are building blocks of a worldview that can be used to justify it.
I've phrased this too much in terms of men and women, perhaps. But "Prison rape is funny" and "Prison rape is something that really awful criminals deserve" are still way more mainstream ideas than they ought to be. That's not the sort of thing that I usually think of as being part of rape culture -- but it is.
posted by Jeanne at 12:44 PM on December 18, 2014 [16 favorites]
The premise of Superbad is "A group of lovable losers go out one night explicitly planning to get girls so drunk that they will have sex with them."
...and learn a valuable lesson about why that is wrong. In the end, our hero refuses to have sex with a drunk girl, even though she is verbally consenting at the time, and is praised for it.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
...and learn a valuable lesson about why that is wrong. In the end, our hero refuses to have sex with a drunk girl, even though she is verbally consenting at the time, and is praised for it.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Observe and Report.
This one's a special case, I'd say, considering the flagrant Travis Bickleness of the main character.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
This one's a special case, I'd say, considering the flagrant Travis Bickleness of the main character.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
I guess? It seems very cherrypicky to me in the context of the larger article. I don't think the thrust of his thesis is that media is the cause of racial tension, only that it's very efficient and successful at amplifying and exacerbating preexisting tensions, and that in many cases it self selects stories to beat precisely for those qualities. Which I think is fairly intuitive. Does anyone really believe that's not the case?
But the point you can't avoid is why these stories exacerbate tension. Again, it comes back to the "difference of opinion" argument - every sort of conflict can be reduced to a bloodless "difference of opinion", but that removes necessary detail and nuance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:59 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
But the point you can't avoid is why these stories exacerbate tension. Again, it comes back to the "difference of opinion" argument - every sort of conflict can be reduced to a bloodless "difference of opinion", but that removes necessary detail and nuance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:59 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Again, it comes back to the "difference of opinion" argument - every sort of conflict can be reduced to a bloodless "difference of opinion", but that removes necessary detail and nuance.
I honestly have no idea what this means or what it refers to in the context of this discussion. Not trolling or trying to be a dick. Just don't grok.
posted by echocollate at 1:07 PM on December 18, 2014
I honestly have no idea what this means or what it refers to in the context of this discussion. Not trolling or trying to be a dick. Just don't grok.
posted by echocollate at 1:07 PM on December 18, 2014
...and learn a valuable lesson about why that is wrong. In the end, our hero refuses to have sex with a drunk girl, even though she is verbally consenting at the time, and is praised for it.
That's true! But the initial plan isn't really played for horror, even though it's horrible. At worst, to my memory, the movie portrays the boys as humorously disgusting, and the movie's decision to gloss over the horror doesn't come off as knowing irony.
But then again, different viewers' mileage will vary, and that's the rub: "Give me examples" turns into "Well, that's a bad example, because" and the aggregate effect of lots of these examples, however good or bad they are, is ignored in favor of making sure that every single one is a slam-dunk example of the culture's indifference to, or approval of, rape and other sexual violence.
On preview, I think Jeanne's comment puts it well. Anyway, this sub-conversation strikes me as a derail from the discussion on the piece in Slate Star Codex, which itself pre-empted discussion of any of the pieces in Slate.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:11 PM on December 18, 2014 [9 favorites]
That's true! But the initial plan isn't really played for horror, even though it's horrible. At worst, to my memory, the movie portrays the boys as humorously disgusting, and the movie's decision to gloss over the horror doesn't come off as knowing irony.
But then again, different viewers' mileage will vary, and that's the rub: "Give me examples" turns into "Well, that's a bad example, because" and the aggregate effect of lots of these examples, however good or bad they are, is ignored in favor of making sure that every single one is a slam-dunk example of the culture's indifference to, or approval of, rape and other sexual violence.
On preview, I think Jeanne's comment puts it well. Anyway, this sub-conversation strikes me as a derail from the discussion on the piece in Slate Star Codex, which itself pre-empted discussion of any of the pieces in Slate.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:11 PM on December 18, 2014 [9 favorites]
Wasn't there a scene in sky fall where bond basically rapes a girl in a hotel room? The idea that guys will try and get a girl drunk in order to have sex with them is not uncommon or prohibited in our culture. That's rape culture.
For anyone genuinely interested there is a whole lot of writing on this by people who know what they are talking about. If you want it you can find it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:13 PM on December 18, 2014
For anyone genuinely interested there is a whole lot of writing on this by people who know what they are talking about. If you want it you can find it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:13 PM on December 18, 2014
Also the generally awful This Is The End, which not only makes fun of rape culture but includes a guy getting raped for the lulz.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:36 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by poffin boffin at 1:36 PM on December 18, 2014
Again, it comes back to the "difference of opinion" argument - every sort of conflict can be reduced to a bloodless "difference of opinion", but that removes necessary detail and nuance.
I honestly have no idea what this means or what it refers to in the context of this discussion. Not trolling or trying to be a dick. Just don't grok.
What I mean is that any form of opposition can be reduced down to a "difference of opinion" between two sides. Of course, in doing so, we lose a lot of the detail as to why the conflict exists. The best example of this was an argument that popped up during the Eich fiasco - there were people defending him by saying his critics were attacking him for expressing a difference in political opinion. Which, technically, was true.
It was just that the matter of difference was whether or not gay Californians should be treated as second class citizens.
So arguing that the media picks stories that inflame tensions is a sort of reductio ad absurdam, because in a lot of cases, there are good reasons for why that happens.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:38 PM on December 18, 2014
I honestly have no idea what this means or what it refers to in the context of this discussion. Not trolling or trying to be a dick. Just don't grok.
What I mean is that any form of opposition can be reduced down to a "difference of opinion" between two sides. Of course, in doing so, we lose a lot of the detail as to why the conflict exists. The best example of this was an argument that popped up during the Eich fiasco - there were people defending him by saying his critics were attacking him for expressing a difference in political opinion. Which, technically, was true.
It was just that the matter of difference was whether or not gay Californians should be treated as second class citizens.
So arguing that the media picks stories that inflame tensions is a sort of reductio ad absurdam, because in a lot of cases, there are good reasons for why that happens.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:38 PM on December 18, 2014
Also the generally awful This Is The End, which not only makes fun of rape culture but includes a guy getting raped for the lulz.
It was also really, really bad. I didn't get the love for this movie. Maybe I'm exiting the dick-joke phase of life. Funny, I expected to be dragged kicking and screaming.
posted by echocollate at 1:40 PM on December 18, 2014
It was also really, really bad. I didn't get the love for this movie. Maybe I'm exiting the dick-joke phase of life. Funny, I expected to be dragged kicking and screaming.
posted by echocollate at 1:40 PM on December 18, 2014
So arguing that the media picks stories that inflame tensions is a sort of reductio ad absurdam, because in a long of cases, there are good reasons for why that happens.
I feel like this is kind of a derail? Or I'm having trouble reconciling it as a relevant critique of the article I read? I dunno.
What he seems to be interested in is why certain stories are elevated above others as representative of certain issues. Why those cases are pushed hardest on social media, among activists, etc., and why they're picked up by the media. These stories seem to be selected for some element of ambiguity or contestability from which conflict erupts. And other representative cases that are less ambiguous, upon which there appears to be consensus on the core issue, are minimized or glossed over. They're never used as a focus for public consensus.
I don't know that I agree necessarily with all of his assertions. I think the analogy between PETAs tactics and some of his other examples are a bit dodgy and deserve scrutiny. But the idea that, regardless of the issue, we are hardwired for conflict, seems self-evident, and the actual issues at hand are almost beside the point. The why of it I think is worth interrogating.
posted by echocollate at 2:05 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
I feel like this is kind of a derail? Or I'm having trouble reconciling it as a relevant critique of the article I read? I dunno.
What he seems to be interested in is why certain stories are elevated above others as representative of certain issues. Why those cases are pushed hardest on social media, among activists, etc., and why they're picked up by the media. These stories seem to be selected for some element of ambiguity or contestability from which conflict erupts. And other representative cases that are less ambiguous, upon which there appears to be consensus on the core issue, are minimized or glossed over. They're never used as a focus for public consensus.
I don't know that I agree necessarily with all of his assertions. I think the analogy between PETAs tactics and some of his other examples are a bit dodgy and deserve scrutiny. But the idea that, regardless of the issue, we are hardwired for conflict, seems self-evident, and the actual issues at hand are almost beside the point. The why of it I think is worth interrogating.
posted by echocollate at 2:05 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's actually a great example of the kind of writing that draws you in...and then when it has you hooked, you don't even notice that it's coming to conclusions which are deeply divorced from your understanding of the world....it's something more sinister.
So you're saying it's sinister to come to different conclusions and present them in a compelling way? That seems like a really closed-off attitude.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 2:07 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
So you're saying it's sinister to come to different conclusions and present them in a compelling way? That seems like a really closed-off attitude.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 2:07 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
What he seems to be interested in is why certain stories are elevated above others as representative of certain issues. Why those cases are pushed hardest on social media, among activists, etc., and why they're picked up by the media. These stories seem to be selected for some element of ambiguity or contestability from which conflict erupts. And other representative cases that are less ambiguous, upon which there appears to be consensus on the core issue, are minimized or glossed over. They're never used as a focus for public consensus.
It's because those examples are where the actual conflict is occurring. The reason they're "ambiguous" is because people are seeing things differently, based on their own worldview and experiences.
In fact, his argument of "why not focus on Garner?" is illustrative of how he's being selective - he's viewing this purely from a "police brutality" standpoint, so he can't see the differences between the Garner and Brown cases, the difference between NYC and STL County. So to him, it's "all the same". But if you were to talk to the actual protesters, they would point out that there is a massive gulf between the environment in the two regions.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:41 PM on December 18, 2014
It's because those examples are where the actual conflict is occurring. The reason they're "ambiguous" is because people are seeing things differently, based on their own worldview and experiences.
In fact, his argument of "why not focus on Garner?" is illustrative of how he's being selective - he's viewing this purely from a "police brutality" standpoint, so he can't see the differences between the Garner and Brown cases, the difference between NYC and STL County. So to him, it's "all the same". But if you were to talk to the actual protesters, they would point out that there is a massive gulf between the environment in the two regions.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:41 PM on December 18, 2014
> Maybe I'm exiting the dick-joke phase of life.
Don't feel bad. Life (and I mean Life, not just your life) is immeasurably worse if you never do.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on December 18, 2014
Don't feel bad. Life (and I mean Life, not just your life) is immeasurably worse if you never do.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on December 18, 2014
So you're saying it's sinister to come to different conclusions and present them in a compelling way? That seems like a really closed-off attitude.
That's not what I'm saying. What he does (along with Less Wrong and other "rationalist intellectual" people in this sphere) is immerse you in this lengthy narrative of "revealing the machinations under the surface", stringing you along with paragraphs that seem to lead to something tantalizing, digging underneath the surface politics of people to get at their real motivations. And when you're persuaded that he's seeing something that everyone else in these partisan wars has overlooked, then you're with him on the ride. It's an impressive performance. It's only when you take a step back and look at things critically do you realize 1) he's presenting a blinkered view and agenda that's just as informed by his surface politics, biases and narrowed perspective, and 2) that view is presented as rational and grounded in the language of psychology and other trappings which end up being more or less a rhetorical trick to hide those flaws.
Looking critically at what people in this new rationalist sphere are doing, and calling it out for what it is, is not a closed-off attitude. When I encountered this guy previously in MetaFilter I spent like half a day eager to get on his wavelength. That's what I came away with, though.
posted by naju at 3:31 PM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
That's not what I'm saying. What he does (along with Less Wrong and other "rationalist intellectual" people in this sphere) is immerse you in this lengthy narrative of "revealing the machinations under the surface", stringing you along with paragraphs that seem to lead to something tantalizing, digging underneath the surface politics of people to get at their real motivations. And when you're persuaded that he's seeing something that everyone else in these partisan wars has overlooked, then you're with him on the ride. It's an impressive performance. It's only when you take a step back and look at things critically do you realize 1) he's presenting a blinkered view and agenda that's just as informed by his surface politics, biases and narrowed perspective, and 2) that view is presented as rational and grounded in the language of psychology and other trappings which end up being more or less a rhetorical trick to hide those flaws.
Looking critically at what people in this new rationalist sphere are doing, and calling it out for what it is, is not a closed-off attitude. When I encountered this guy previously in MetaFilter I spent like half a day eager to get on his wavelength. That's what I came away with, though.
posted by naju at 3:31 PM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
Just want to note for the record that it's a bummer this thread has turned into a referendum on that guy's politics rather than an exploration of a more important trend. He wins this round.
posted by naju at 3:35 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by naju at 3:35 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Now you can be outraged over the Slate calender's entries that you thought were "outrageous!" but the majority voted "overblown" and vice versa. Kind of an outrage derivative.
posted by telstar at 4:10 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by telstar at 4:10 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
I read this post from my work computer, which is ancient and barely functional, so I didn't see that jesus christ we've been talking about some dumb blogger's half-coherent half-thoughts instead of this huge, undoubtedly awful calendar of 2014's outrages
c'mon, people
c'mon
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
c'mon, people
c'mon
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
There's a reason outragefilter is a thing discouraged here. Outrage doesn't have time for nuance, but it makes a lot of time for hyperbole. Outrage takes the offended at their word but paints their offendees in the most negative light. Outrage makes things black and white, but saying things are grey is just as bad as whatever the original offence was. Outrage rarely, rarely walks back whatever was said in the moment if, once more information comes in, it turns out they were incorrect. Outrage lets people feel justified in being an arsehole, and if you have any problems with that, even if you agree with their greater point, you become part of the problem - and part of the target.
I thought the Amanda Hess portion of the page did a good job at pointing out how the internet outrage machine on the left is a disservice to both the left and individual thought; I appreciated that she mentioned that Suey Park, months after her biggest moment of outrage fame, has admitted that there were outrages and beat-ups, and in the heat of the moment it's hard to tell the difference.
I also think this year has been a bumper year for things occurring that spark real, genuine, valid outrage, but that the rage/outrage dichotomy is probably a good one to adopt. Because the internet is very good at providing a venue for destructive, unproductive venting that feels like it's useful, as if 'This bad thing happened and I'm angry! Feel angry too!' was the end goal rather than a state to move through.
Don't support something which gives prominence only to the people who can yell the loudest and most often. They can be the people who have the most to yell about - but they can also be the people who just want to yell the most, and you'll end up having a devil of a time separating the two.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:33 PM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
I thought the Amanda Hess portion of the page did a good job at pointing out how the internet outrage machine on the left is a disservice to both the left and individual thought; I appreciated that she mentioned that Suey Park, months after her biggest moment of outrage fame, has admitted that there were outrages and beat-ups, and in the heat of the moment it's hard to tell the difference.
I also think this year has been a bumper year for things occurring that spark real, genuine, valid outrage, but that the rage/outrage dichotomy is probably a good one to adopt. Because the internet is very good at providing a venue for destructive, unproductive venting that feels like it's useful, as if 'This bad thing happened and I'm angry! Feel angry too!' was the end goal rather than a state to move through.
Don't support something which gives prominence only to the people who can yell the loudest and most often. They can be the people who have the most to yell about - but they can also be the people who just want to yell the most, and you'll end up having a devil of a time separating the two.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:33 PM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]
Don't support something which gives prominence only to the people who can yell the loudest and most often. They can be the people who have the most to yell about - but they can also be the people who just want to yell the most, and you'll end up having a devil of a time separating the two.
Is your thesis is that social media is the source of that problem, because if so, I have a real sad tale to tell you.
posted by kagredon at 5:42 PM on December 18, 2014
Is your thesis is that social media is the source of that problem, because if so, I have a real sad tale to tell you.
posted by kagredon at 5:42 PM on December 18, 2014
Not social media, individuals on the internet. Including on MetaFilter. Especially on Twitter. I said people, I meant people.
The media are eminently culpable as part of the outrage machine, but I didn't even bring it up, so your Wikipedia link feels orthogonal to anything mentioned so far.
Though this sort of thing might be more interesting: How a right-wing meme got made.
posted by gadge emeritus at 5:50 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
The media are eminently culpable as part of the outrage machine, but I didn't even bring it up, so your Wikipedia link feels orthogonal to anything mentioned so far.
Though this sort of thing might be more interesting: How a right-wing meme got made.
posted by gadge emeritus at 5:50 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
The point I was trying to make was that it's sort of weird to characterize the relatively open, low-bar to access conversations on Metafilter or Twitter as being dominated by people who "yell the loudest and most often" when the primary ability to "yell loudest and most often" is consolidated in the hands of a small elite. But whatever.
posted by kagredon at 5:59 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by kagredon at 5:59 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
(You'll notice in the Gawker article that you linked, that the way the meme went viral was a misleading crop by the editor for NRO, not some random "individual on the internet")
posted by kagredon at 6:02 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by kagredon at 6:02 PM on December 18, 2014
I did read the article I linked, thank you. I'm also fully aware, as a person living in a country dominated by Murdoch press, about the problems and power of media consolidation in the hands of a small elite.
Considering I wasn't talking about the major scale of the media's offences but about places like MetaFilter and Twitter, where each voice is measured more equally, it seems in your desire to make your point you did a pretty good job of missing mine.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:59 PM on December 18, 2014
Considering I wasn't talking about the major scale of the media's offences but about places like MetaFilter and Twitter, where each voice is measured more equally, it seems in your desire to make your point you did a pretty good job of missing mine.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:59 PM on December 18, 2014
The year of top keks.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:05 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:05 PM on December 18, 2014
Yeah, that Hess part was very good.
The paint-by-numbers "look at what people are saying on Twitter!" articles are a real disservice, and I suspect they're playing a real role in creating millions of micro echo chambers.
It's funny that Hess quotes a Jezebel editor, since the Gawker network is at least as responsible as anyone for this.
posted by graphnerd at 8:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
The paint-by-numbers "look at what people are saying on Twitter!" articles are a real disservice, and I suspect they're playing a real role in creating millions of micro echo chambers.
It's funny that Hess quotes a Jezebel editor, since the Gawker network is at least as responsible as anyone for this.
posted by graphnerd at 8:04 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
The Hess part was ok, but Michelle Goldberg's hitpiece really was a shitty shitty article.
posted by kmz at 12:15 AM on December 19, 2014
posted by kmz at 12:15 AM on December 19, 2014
« Older Recommended for 6–12 (with time reduced for good... | It's like eating with a bunch of animals Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Wordshore at 9:17 AM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]